And the Impotence Came Crashing In

[Jersey Girl]

Back with a link!

https://www.businessinsider.com/nuclear ... New Testament-2017-11

[DrW]

Use of nuclear weapons by the United States must be authorized by the President. While presidential authorization is necessary, it would not necessarily be sufficient unless the order was justified under the law (i.e. in response to threat of imminent nuclear attack). The chain of command for this action goes from the President through the Secretary of Defense, to the responsible Pentagon authority, to the military unit that would launch the weapons.

Trump, the Secretary of Defense and the Pentagon can order the use of nuclear weapons but cannot physically launch them. Physical launch of strategic nuclear weapons is carried out by the land based ICBM launch crews, boomer submarine launch crews, or (much less likely because of response times) the nuclear bomber flight crews. These crews all have fail safe procedures in place which only allow launch with a two-man authentication of the launch codes provided from the Pentagon to the launch site.

Members of the military have a duty to carry out the lawful orders of their superordinates. A deranged president's order to detonate a nuclear weapon on a target in a foreign country, or even over the ocean as a demonstration of strength (as North Korea has threatened to do) would not be lawful unless the US were under nuclear attack or well documented threat of imminent attack. Credible information regarding such a threat would only come from the Defense Department.

Trump cannot simply wake up one morning and decide to launch a nuclear attack just because he is pissed at someone. Any legitimate justification for lawful use of nuclear weapons would come from the Defense Department to the President through the Secretary of Defense. The order to launch would be relayed back down the chain of command through the Secretary of Defense as described. If the order from Trump were illegal, the Secretary of Defense and the Pentagon would have no obligation to obey it and probably would not do so.

Early in the Trump Administration, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and senior military advisors and planners met to discuss what policy changes might be put in place to protect against illegal first use of nuclear weapons by a deranged president (I'm not kidding). What new policies were put in place as a result of these meetings, if any, were not disclosed to my knowledge. However, the mere fact that the meetings took place says a lot about the military's view of Trump.

The US has not agreed to a No First Use policy for nuclear weapons (a policy reaffirmed as late as 2010). Authorization for use by the President is necessary, but highly unlikely to be sufficient, to result in first use if no imminent threat exists.

[Dr. Shades]

Yes, he can. He issues the order. The military gets the order then the military acts on the order. Only the military that gets the order could possibly override the order and in that case, they'd be breaking their oath.

That already happened. . . in 1983, on the Soviet side. Stanislav Petrov, upon early warning that the U.S. had launched a nuclear strike, judged that it was most likely a false alarm and declined to inform his superiors about said warning, thereby grossly violating his orders. (Later research into the Soviet satellite in question's detection system proved that it was, indeed, a false alarm.)

Had he obeyed orders, it's pretty much a certainty that the Soviets would've launched what it thought was a counterstrike, prompting the United States to launch an actual counterstrike, thereby ending civilization--if not humanity--as we know it.

In that way, Stanislav Petrov quite literally--not figuratively, but LITERALLY--saved the world. In my opinion, a golden statue needs to be erected to him not only in our nation's capital but in every major city in the world.

[Moksha]

Let us hope Trump does not order nuclear strikes against California, Oregon, and Washington even if these strikes would be popular with his base. We could count on Senators Mike Lee and Lindsay Graham to declare it divine retribution.

[Moksha]

In that way, Stanislav Petrov quite literally--not figuratively, but LITERALLY--saved the world. In my opinion, a golden statue needs to be erected to him not only in our nation's capital but in every major city in the world.

Maybe even a golden mattress erected to Trump at the Presidio in San Francisco.

Seriously, Stanislav Petrov was a true hero.

[DrW]

That already happened. . . in 1983, on the Soviet side. Stanislav Petrov, upon early warning that the U.S. had launched a nuclear strike, judged that it was most likely a false alarm and declined to inform his superiors about said warning, thereby grossly violating his orders. (Later research into the Soviet satellite in question's detection system proved that it was, indeed, a false alarm.)

Had he obeyed orders, it's pretty much a certainty that the Soviets would've launched what it thought was a counterstrike, prompting the United States to launch an actual counterstrike, thereby ending civilization--if not humanity--as we know it.

In that way, Stanislav Petrov quite literally--not figuratively, but LITERALLY--saved the world. In my opinion, a golden statue needs to be erected to him not only in our nation's capital but in every major city in the world.

That's not the only example. At the height of the Cuban missile crisis a Russian named Vasili Arkhipov was the political officer (read KGB) aboard a Soviet submarine (B-59) armed with tactical nuclear torpedoes. When an American destroyer began to drop non-lethal depth charges as a signal for the Soviet sub to surface, the captain of the Soviet sub believed his vessel to be under attack and ordered that a nuclear torpedo be prepared for firing at the USS Randolf (CV-15), an American aircraft carrier in the area.

Soviet doctrine for launching a tactical nuclear attack at the time required permission by three officers. In this case Arkhipov was one of the three. He refused to permit the launch of the nuclear torpedo against the orders of the submarine captain, thus preventing the Cuban missile crisis from going nuclear, and possibly igniting nuclear war between the US and Russia.

As the Guardian describes it from the UK perspective, the aftermath of a Russian nuclear torpedo attack on a US capital ship could have gone something like this:

"If the B-59's torpedo had vaporised the Randolf, the nuclear clouds would quickly have spread from sea to land. The first targets would have been Moscow, London, the airbases of East Anglia and troop concentrations in Germany. The next wave of bombs would have wiped out "economic targets", a euphemism for civilian populations – more than half the UK population would have died. Meanwhile, the Pentagon's SIOP, Single Integrated Operational Plan – a doomsday scenario that echoed Dr Strangelove's orgiastic Götterdämmerung – would have hurled 5,500 nuclear weapons against a thousand targets, including ones in non-belligerent states such as Albania and China."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... uclear-war

(Having some knowledge of US nuclear deterrence capability back in the day, I'm not sure I agree completely with the Guardian on this, but it makes for a sobering scenario.)

.

[Dr Exiled]

Trump won't hang on to power if it becomes clear that his election fraud claims do not have merit. We should have a better picture of whether or not these claims have merit by the end of this month. If his claims are without merit, Trump will start to plan his post-presidential life. If anything, Trump looks at ratings and will want to keep his popularity among his supporters. At this point, the Trump faithful believe that there was election fraud and that Trump actually won. However, the faithful will leave if he cannot make his case and he will then concede.

[DrW]

Trump won't hang on to power if it becomes clear that his election fraud claims do not have merit. We should have a better picture of whether or not these claims have merit by the end of this month. If his claims are without merit, Trump will start to plan his post-presidential life. If anything, Trump looks at ratings and will want to keep his popularity among his supporters. At this point, the Trump faithful believe that there was election fraud and that Trump actually won. However, the faithful will leave if he cannot make his case and he will then concede.

Trump is mentally ill. His delusion driven tactic here is to deny reality and delay the orderly transition of power to the greatest extent possible. He is already blocking release of funds mandated by law to pay for the transition. In doing so, he will be responsible for the deaths of even more innocent citizens than he has killed already.

Will he eventually concede in a formal speech before the nation? Perhaps - but don't hold your breath. The nation and its people are clearly not a priority for him.

[Dr Exiled]

Trump won't hang on to power if it becomes clear that his election fraud claims do not have merit. We should have a better picture of whether or not these claims have merit by the end of this month. If his claims are without merit, Trump will start to plan his post-presidential life. If anything, Trump looks at ratings and will want to keep his popularity among his supporters. At this point, the Trump faithful believe that there was election fraud and that Trump actually won. However, the faithful will leave if he cannot make his case and he will then concede.

Trump is mentally ill. His delusion driven tactic here is to deny reality and delay the orderly transition of power to the greatest extent possible. He is already blocking release of funds mandated by law to pay for the transition. In doing so, he will be responsible for the deaths of even more innocent citizens than he has killed already.

Will he eventually concede in a formal speech before the nation? Perhaps - but don't hold your breath. The nation and its people are clearly not a priority for him.

I don't know if he is mentally ill. I think Trump is acting how he always has, bragging every chance he gets and having an attitude that he is always somehow the winner. However, he bankrupted his companies when that was the wise choice. I believe he will concede if he cannot prove his election fraud theories. He is too worried about his children and his brand to be too obtuse (I know that is hard to fathom but I think even Trump has limits). We will see. Stay tuned to the next few weeks. By early December, Trump will either put up or shut up. That is my prediction.

[ajax18]

If he really wants to stay in power, he can stay in power as long as he likes; or at least until we are forced to undermine the constitution for the greater good.

Isn't that what you've always done?